Monday, 8 November 2004

I'm PC Plod and I'm not reporting for duty

It seems that the police have worked out that a smoking ban in so-called public places will create a few difficulties. And, amazingly, the cops have told the politicians that they won't enforce any such ban:

SENIOR police officers have told ministers they would not be prepared to enforce the Scottish Executive’s planned ban on smoking in public places.

The warning opens the way for new teams of "smoking police" employed by local authorities or health boards, who will target pubs and clubs once a ban is imposed.

This is excellent news and perhaps a first sign that senior police officers realise that the public wants them to concentrate on catching criminals instead of becoming the storm troopers for an illiberal nanny state.

Last year I described the British police as "the paramilitary wing of the Guardian newspaper." That was written back in the days when the once proud voice of Manchester liberalism had degenerated into being the mouthpiece of the social-working classes, a group that increasingly seemed to include our police forces.

The Guardian directly delivered Clark County for Bush. And hence Ohio for Bush. And further hence, America for Bush.

So by extension, you can also blame The Guardian for the bombardment of Falluja, the invasion of Iran, the invasion of Syria, thousands of Islamofascist nutters blowing themselves up everywhere from Baghdad to Bank Tube station, dirty bombs and anthrax in Canary Wharf and Times Square, a swift retaliatory and punitive response from the USA on the central mosque in Mecca and world war three.

Yes indeed. And, if the police continue to be closet Guardian readers, it's a new type of paper they're looking at. Having overthrown the elitist Massachusetts Democrat it must only be a matter of time before the Guardian helps rid us of our own elitist, the illiberal Lanarkshire Labourite. I'm sure that most policemen will agree. They know it makes sense.

3 comments:

Squander Two Did you know that, during Prohibition, not a single American got drunk?

20 November 2004, 13:25:33 GMT– Like – Reply

DavidC The use by David Ellams of the phrase -"fascist assault on private property rights" was surely meant to signify "something I disapprove of", as usual. I disapprove too but perhaps "totalitarian assault on private property" would be more accurate.

18 November 2004, 18:45:09 GMT– Like – Reply

Stuart Andy, Here is an interesting article re polls:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4006373.stm

I agree with this sentence:

-"Part of the problem is that the media often runs stories without publishing details of the methodology."

15 November 2004, 12:49:05 GMT– Like – Reply

William There's a motion on the Scottish Executive website calling for MSP's to, er, follow their own lead and ban smoking in public for themselves....

11 November 2004, 16:41:11 GMT– Like – Reply

Stuart Neil I believe we could see a blossoming in sales figures from Barbour, green welly and umbrella retailers.

10 November 2004, 21:14:54 GMT– Like – Reply

Neil Craig I believe there is a poll showing 80% in favour of a workplace ban & another showing 80% against a pub ban. This shows how much polls depend on who is doing it & what question(s) thay ask (one trick is to ask several leading questions first which manouver you into position - Do you think lung cancer deaths are to high => Do you support a ban on big business; or alternately What do you think of the nanny state=> Do you oppose a ban in your local).

Stuart there is a downside to a beer garden in Scotland. Merry Christmas.

I don't support a ban because everybody else may or may not, but because it makes sense to me personally.

David Ellams -"fascist assault on private property rights"

It was actually the communists who attacked private property rights. One of the few points of differentiation between fascism and communism is that fascists reluctantly accepted the necessity of private property in order for the economy to function. Economics was never of great interest to fascists - they tended to adopt vaguely Keynesian economic policies.

All governments restrict certain activities among their electorates, especially negative externalities like cigarette smoking. That does not make them "fascist". Are you calling the USA "fascist" because they banned commercial swordfishing earlier this year? You need to brush up your history - and get things in perspective.

-"that banning the use/possession of narcotics has not had the claimed health improvement benefits?"

In order to make such a claim you would have to cite an example where narcotic use is permitted, and levels of health measured and compared.

10 November 2004, 19:55:15 GMT– Like – Reply

David Ellams The euphoric comments from the illiberals who support this fascist assault on private property rights are full of claims that the health of the Scots will improve once this ban is in place.

Have they not noticed that banning the use/possession of narcotics has not had the claimed health improvement benefits?

10 November 2004, 19:09:39 GMT– Like – Reply

Andy Wood Even taking into account the huge flaws in the BBC poll methodology the large 66% difference between Yes and No means that it is extremely unlikely that in reality No is greater that Yes.

I really can't agree with that. If you are presented with two polls which show huge majorities, but in opposite directions, you would really have to investigate their methodologies before accepting either result.

We already know that one poll has no corrections for sampling bias and the other was conducted by a professional polling organisation. Perhaps that's not enough evidence to accept the ICM poll, but it is enough to be extremely suspicious of the website poll and defer judgement until other, properly conducted polls come out.

10 November 2004, 18:33:46 GMT– Like – Reply

Stuart I am not aware of the Newsnight poll or its methodology. (It is a very big assumption to assume that it was "conducted properly". Opportunities for cock-ups, deliberate or inadvertant, are legion.)

Even taking into account the huge flaws in the BBC poll methodology the large 66% difference between Yes and No means that it is extremely unlikely that in reality No is greater that Yes.

There are probably good reasons why the results are so different, not least the "population" sampled. It may also indicate that "Yes" advocates are more passionate and involved than "No" advocates, leading them to swamp the uncontrolled BBC sample.

10 November 2004, 18:12:34 GMT– Like – Reply

Andy Wood I would argue that when the result is as definitive as this then we must accept that the results indicate support for the Government's decision...

Why? Like I said, the poll that was quoted on Newsnight last night, (ICM, I think) showed the opposite result - 70% opposition to the ban. Assuming that that poll has been conducted properly, surely we must accept that result, not the website one.

As a former professional pollster I agree absolutely: it is totally unscientific and wide-open to abuse.

However, I would argue that when the result is as definitive as this then we must accept that the results indicate support for the Government's decision (including from interested respondents abroad - ie. our tourist market).

(For the same reasons I would urge one-and-all to be highly suspicious of "YouGov" poll results.)

10 November 2004, 17:21:42 GMT– Like – Reply

Stuart This debate has obviously ignited everyone's imagination, as evidenced by the "Have your say" section of the BBC website, with responses from throughout the world. It has even topped UK-wide news bulletins: highly unusual for Scottish stories.

As has happened before, my own household is split. I favour the ban (partly due to being a recovering cancer patient - having had chest radiotherapy I am told that in future I will be far more sensitive to passive smoke) while my Nordic partner is vociferously opposed (she quit in July - reluctantly).

Regardless of the issue, at last the Scottish Parliament is tackling something that people care deeply about.

I am pleased the ban is only in "enclosed" places - long live the beer garden!

10 November 2004, 17:16:49 GMT– Like – Reply

Andy Wood That's the one I thought. It's just the sort of poll that gets dismissed by professional pollsters.

10 November 2004, 17:14:24 GMT– Like – Reply

Stuart The poll is at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3978147.stm

Now, with over 11,000 votes (presumably from throughout the world) the result stands at:

Yes: 73% No: 7% No - but the law should require ventilation to be installed: 20%

So 93% of respondents think that the state should intervene, one way or another.